I'm not sure about the bold. I believe that if they thought they could, they would. Many, but not most. But they would lose much of their less extreme voter base.
And yes, ensuring equality can be messy....but how much longer should blacks have had to wait after the Civil War? The Civil Rights movement was 100 yrs later. 100 yrs later, Jim Crow was still alive and well in the South, as well as some other places.
Yes, it was messy and even violent.....should the govt have just 'avoided' any action to move it forward and let the discrimination and injustices and literal dehumanization of a large group of people...citizens... in our country go on until that overt and legal racism just petered out on its own (IF it would have)?
IMO, hypocrisy does not deserve 'space' or tolerance. Because it is pure hypocrisy.
There was no outrage, were no campaigns organized to end adulterers* and fornicators from marrying/remarrying, no legislation proposed challenging it, no 'family organizations' handing out pamphlets at the grocery store. Nor anyone speaking out against felons...murderers, rapists, pedophiles....marrying while in prison. No campaigns to keep athiests and the 'godless' from marrying.
No, just gays.
*The Catholic Church does forbid, still I think, adulterers to remarry in the Church but I'm not sure)
The campaigns of which you are apparently unaware were quite powerful and lasted centuries.
Really? I would like some sources for that, specifically for the institution of marriage.
The movement from laws against homosexuality to gay marriage has been accomplished in about 10% of the time it took to move from Appomattox to the Civil Rights Act, so no, I don't think think acceptance of some messiness at this moment is unreasonable. Especially since the number of people directly affected negatively would be minuscule.
If it's 'wrong,' it's wrong. If gays deserve equal rights, then they do....period.
And each individual deserves that respect and equality....IMO that may be part of the problem....not seeing gays as individuals....just seeing their 'sexual habits.' Yet, minority or not...the Const. specifically protects minorities from the majority.
We now are on a tangent from bakeries and wedding photographers tho....because SSM does not infringe on anyone's religious freedom, while there are indeed 2 sides to 'serving' the sinners.
As I posted earlier, Parker has this right, IMHO.
". . . If even a few Christians, Jews or Muslims understand marriage to be the sacred union of man and woman in the eyes of God, activists seeking a fresh definition shouldn’t expect an immediate surrender. This doesn’t justify the refusal of a wedding cake, the baking of which hardly qualifies as an endorsement, but nor does it justify charges of bigotry, as is often said of religious people struggling with profound social restructuring.
This isn’t an excuse for what is, in fact, discrimination by any other name. It is an attempt at compassion sorely missing from most discussions of this and other laws that try to carve out a tiny space for people whose religious beliefs are being put asunder. As gay activist and conservative author Andrew Sullivan wrote last year, “We should give them [religious believers] space.”
Such as by, say, going to another bakery?
The market ultimately may settle these matters before the courts do. Pence’s latest move was prompted by corporate pressure as well as a few boycotts on state-funded travel to the Hoosier state.
As Indiana moves to clarify its intent, the perception of discrimination will persist until RFRA laws are eliminated. This is the goal of many activists. But discrimination is a two-way street, and tolerance should apply equally to sexual orientation as well as to religious belief.
There’s plenty of cake to go around."
You didn't answer my question. What should an LGBT person do if they encounter a company that won't do business with them for religions reasons?
That interview should be a complete embarrassment to anyone who lives in Indiana. I mean really... how freakin' difficult is it answering a direct "yes" or "no" question? Amazing how different he came across (after the backlash) a few days later :roll:. And correct me if I am wrong, but the law that Clinton signed 20 years ago that he kept on referring to (ad naseum) has a major difference to his. It included businesses as "people." BIG difference.
And they can, the price is the advantage of an open business in a civilized and secure society.They are obligated to live their faith in all they do.
And they can, the price is the advantage of an open business in a civilized and secure society.
You didn't answer my question. What should an LGBT person do if they encounter a company that won't do business with them for religions reasons?
Why do you automatically assume the gay couple wouldn't want a Christian themed cake?
The answer was in there. Go somewhere else.
To eliminate any confusion, the second sentence of my #284 was not directed at you. It was the answer to your question.
The answer was in there. Go somewhere else.
Everyone needs to recognize that evolution of social/cultural attitudes toward LGBT has been extraordinarily rapid, maybe unprecedentedly so. It would therefore be wise for all parties to give each other some slack. Let's all exercise some actual tolerance instead of looking for opportunities to be outraged.
The answer was in there. Go somewhere else.
Religious conservatives may be on the wrong side of extremely rapid cultural evolution, but that does not delegitimize their human rights claim or their constitutionally protected freedom of religion.
It does in an orderly civilized society, where they wish to practice their faith. I remind you that there are ways for them to both conduct business and keep their faith without practicing random discrimination.Religious conservatives may be on the wrong side of extremely rapid cultural evolution, but that does not delegitimize their human rights claim or their constitutionally protected freedom of religion.
There we have it. Shut up and take it. Accept being treated as second class citizen for something they have no control over.
Maybe those stores and services could put up a sign so that no LGBT person/couple would have to deal with the unpleasantness face to face?
BTW, the answer was in your quoted comments, not in your own words.
In other words, those gay folks should just be patient until the Neanderthals figure things out. We tried that with blacks after the Civil War. After a hundred years, the Neanderthals still hadn't figured it out.
In a time of extremely rapid cultural evolution the number of actual cases will be small and decrease quickly. Tolerance means not getting everything you want all the time. And the religious conservatives have legitimate human rights and constitutional claims of their own.
This is the same cavalier, blatant trolling everyone who asks a religious conservative the question Gina asked will get in response.
In a time of extremely rapid cultural evolution the number of actual cases will be small and decrease quickly. Tolerance means not getting everything you want all the time. And the religious conservatives have legitimate human rights and constitutional claims of their own.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?